In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them • Hacker News Board

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#241

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #203

currymj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the point of "induced demand" is that you sometimes can't really fix -- specifically -- traffic or parking congestion problems by building more. if you widen the roads, in many cases it won't make your commute any quicker. if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown. it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about…

>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?

[deleted]

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#242

Post by crooked-v » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #203

currymj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the point of "induced demand" is that you sometimes can't really fix -- specifically -- traffic or parking congestion problems by building more. if you widen the roads, in many cases it won't make your commute any quicker. if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown. it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about…

>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?

I think the counterpart question to that is, given how space-inefficient cars are, how many actual people do you enable by adding that car capacity, and how does that number compare to even basic public transit options?

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#243

Post by prmoustache » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

the-alchemist wrote: post #111

theodorejb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention greater wear on the road and increased particle emissions from brakes and tires due to heavy batteries in EVs. https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxi...

Very misleading statement. First, NY Post is kind of a tabloid. You gotta dig deeper. Here's the actual study: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1... I recommend reading it. It's actually pretty well done. Secondly, the report itself and common sense dictate that regenerative braking on EVs (or hybrids) greatly decrease brake usage, therefore brake dust. Some EVs have "one-pedal" modes where…

You are dismissing the weight factor a bit too quickly. Many EVs regardless of their size weight as much as some ICE heavy pickups, especially as the trend of driving SUVs hasn't disappeared with EVs.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#244

Post by ksplicer » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #190

languagehacker wrote: post #51

I just read Paved Paradise as well as The High Cost of Free Parking. This seems like the current gradual trend towards reversing the hidden subsidy for drivers, first by giving them less affordances at remarkably low prices or for free. A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not…

>> I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit Induced demand is a concept that anti-car people use, but I don't think it makes much sense. Imagine a library that only has a few copies of some best selling children's books. There's a very long queue to check out those books. Someone might argue that, "We should buy more copies of the bes…

What you are missing is that every time we widen roads to allow more car throughput we are making every other type of transit and mobility less attractive. Busy streets with big parking lots are unpleasant to walk or bike along, so people just drive to their destinations instead, which makes the street even busier, louder, and smellier starts this cycle all over again. Every time a road is widened or a new parking lot is added the city also becomes less dense, making getting anywhere useful more time consuming. Drivers have to spend longer on the road to get where they want to go, public transit gets more expensive as routes get longer, and walking and biking quickly become too time consuming. There is just a maximum density that cars can support which works totally fine for suburbs but breaks down in denser cities. Personally I think Park and Ride programs are the most reasonable compromise.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#245

Post by dymk » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

EasyMark wrote: post #239

infecto wrote: post #15

Sounds like the Bay Area. We don't like cars but we refuse to build comprehensive transit. To build transit that works you cannot value everyone's opinion equally and have to just make it happen. Some of the worst localized pollution I have experienced in my life was while living in the Bay Area with the massive traffic jams.

There’s another huge way to put a dent it and let people live where they want: work from home works. The pandemic proved it. It’s not a 100% solution but there is seldom a 100% solution that doesn’t involve totalitarian government since not everyone wants to live in the city in concrete towers.

That’s a decision of employers, not policy makers

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#246

Post by bee_rider » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #202

tromp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that having more car traffic induces more pollution, more casualties, and more time spent unproductively (you can do other things on public transit, or get exercise commuting by bike), whereas more book reading has few downsides.

>> you can do other things on public transit, What can I do on public transit that people don't do in a car in traffic?

Don’t? Probably nothing. But they shouldn’t be reading or using their laptops while driving!

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#247

Post by kiba » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

kentonv wrote: post #163

light_hue_1 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not at all what happens. Housing cost does not go down with highway construction. No. It's making people's lives worse. They could have better lives with transit.

You're saying that highway construction encourages building of new housing, enough to use up all the new highway capacity, but that this doesn't bring down housing costs. This is quite an extraordinary claim that goes against basic economics. I don't believe it. I think you and others have convinced yourselves that this is true because you like the conclusion: that we should stop building highways. But it's a torture…

Highway and car infrastructure are the most inefficient way to use land in urban environments. The higher density, the worse cars are. I can't really justify using cars except for interfacing with rural areas.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#248

Post by bee_rider » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:50 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #232

rufus_foreman wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you can do other things on public transit, What can I do on public transit that people don't do in a car in traffic?

Read a book? Watch videos on a phone? Play videogames? I've done all of these on the train before. I wouldn't dare do these while driving.

I assume

> What can I do on public transit that people *don't* do in a car in traffic?

was an intentional and funny word choice to include terrible drivers doing the things you listed.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#249

Post by kiba » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:50 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #28

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical systems don't care about your feelings. Live somewhere that ignores science and is financially irresponsible with infra dollars if that is your MO. We're not going to spend to build roads forever because people are ignorant and selfish, we can't even pay for the road infra we have today. And some folks are demanding more ? Absolutely silly. "I'm not happy they're not building roads we cannot afford and will…

What science is being ignored? Traffic expanding to fill capacity is not a bad thing, that is efficient use of capacity?

The problem with roads and highways is that they are inherently low-capacity, so it's very easy to fill them with traffic.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#250

Post by seadan83 » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 9:53 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #190

languagehacker wrote: post #51

I just read Paved Paradise as well as The High Cost of Free Parking. This seems like the current gradual trend towards reversing the hidden subsidy for drivers, first by giving them less affordances at remarkably low prices or for free. A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not…

>> I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit Induced demand is a concept that anti-car people use, but I don't think it makes much sense. Imagine a library that only has a few copies of some best selling children's books. There's a very long queue to check out those books. Someone might argue that, "We should buy more copies of the bes…

Perhaps a library vs a commercial book store might have worked as a better analogy. The queue theory part of it I think breaks down a lot. Induced demand is not only about queue theory, but also choosing between options.

In short though, induced demand is somewhat simple. If it takes 10 minutes to drive and 30 minutes to take a bus, then I drive. If it takes 30 minutes to drive and 10 minutes to take a bus, then I take the bus. Eventually enough people choose to drive, or take a bus, that that mode becomes congested/inconvenient enough that people start making other choices. In other words, there are some people who avoid highways during rush hour because the traffic jams are bad. If the highway is widened, then they would join the rush hour once again and be part of the traffic jams. Induced demand is about taking away the reason why people avoid something, and thereby doing so they change their behavior to start doing that thing.